उपनिषद् · Gaṇapati 1.3
॥
देवनागरी
त्वमेव सर्वं खल्विदं ब्रह्मासि । त्वं साक्षादात्मासि नित्यम्
लिप्यंतरण (IAST)
tvameva sarvaṃ khalvidaṃ brahmāsi | tvaṃ sākṣādātmāsi nityam
शब्दशः अर्थ
संस्कृतIASTअर्थ
त्वम् एव सर्वं खलु इदम्tvam eva sarvaṃ khalu idamyou indeed are all this, truly
ब्रह्म असिbrahma asiyou are brahman
त्वं साक्षात् आत्मा असि नित्यम्tvaṃ sākṣāt ātmā asi nityamyou are, visibly, the self, eternally
अनुवाद
You indeed are all this, truly, brahman; you are, visibly, the self, eternally.
संस्करण
ec673052c1e0 · प्रकाशित 6 अग॰ 2026, 3:51:57 pm UTC
उपलब्ध भाषाएँRUENश्लोक बदलें इन कुंजियों से
A second pronouncement is cited: sarvaṃ khalv idaṃ brahma, "all this, truly, is brahman" (Chāndogya 3.14.1). Let us see how it is used here, because this use is itself an interpretation. In the Chāndogya the pronouncement stands as a separate statement; here it is inserted into the second person: "you are all this, brahman."
The change is small in appearance and great in substance. It is one thing to say "all is brahman" — there neither speaker nor listener. It is another to say to someone, "you are all"; there, still, two remain.
It is precisely to such reworkings that the Vaiṣṇava side points when asked why it reads the pronouncements of unity as pronouncements of relation. It points not to its own preference but to the texts themselves: wherever pronouncements of unity fall into living speech, into a prayer or a hymn, they invariably take the second person — that is, they presuppose the one to whom they are addressed. The second half of the line adds sākṣāt ātmā, "visibly the self." The word sākṣāt means "before one's own eyes, directly"; it was discussed when reading the Bhasma-jābāla.
The Vaiṣṇava side undertakes to explain how this is possible by the very notion that constitutes its distinctiveness: acintya-bheda-abheda, "inconceivable difference-and-non-difference." All is He — and all is not He; and both statements hold together not by oversight but because such is the relation of the source to what proceeds from it. Opponents call this a dodge, and the reproach must be stated. They say: to say "both" is to say nothing.
The answer to this reproach is given not by argument but by pointing to an experience of relation available to everyone. A father and a son are one in essence and two in person; and anyone who has tried to describe this in a single word knows that both words are needed and that neither is superfluous.